Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Columbo: I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either way but they say running, and others say oozing.

Thatīs just fine. But I think we should take in the full perspective, and that involves:
1. How the papers reported before the inquest that Neil had seen the blood flowing profusely from the gap.
2. How Neil said BOTH that the blood was oozing and that it was running.
3. That Mizen said it was running.

For some reason, those who dislike the Lechmere theory seem to forget all but the oozing thing. And if you goole "oozing profusely", you will get 2620 hits. I believe Neil chose the word "oozed" for the simple reason that the blood was not pumping out, it was welling out with no underlying pressure.

Now you can say it was too dark for anyone without a lantern to see the blood, but the lighting (which has been discussed to death) has been proven to my satisfaction to be enough for them to at least see that her clothes were up around her waist, for them to find her face, arms and chest. And it was light enough for the killer to see either Lechmere or Paul coming, so it wasn't pitch black. If Lechmere could reach out and touch Paul, then there was enough light to see basic outlines and possibly some details.

Mmm. Like the pool of blood under her neck - if it was there at the time...

Could the blood come from the abdominal wounds? Maybe, but then you have to explain where the pints of blood escaping the neck wound went.

No, I donīt, actually. If Nichols was extensively cut in the abdomen, where there are arteries and veins aplenty, then the blood would sink into the abdiominal cavity, and only what was left would go out through the neck. If the neck cut was below the level of the abdominal cavity blood, then some of that blood would run out through the neck. So we really cannot say that pints of blood must have excited via the neck.

It may be a combination of both we just don't know.

Two truths in one sentence there!

What we do know is that she was mutilated after death which would mean there is no blood pressure to cause massive bleeding from the external mutilations of the stomach.

There was blood pressure as long as the heart beat. And if she was only partially strangled, then the heart would beat for some time into the abdominal mutilations if they came first.

And I believe that it was reported that blood collected in the abdominal cavity (that may be chapman but I'm too tired to look it up) so the amount of blood from the mutilations may have been minimal.

Or not, depending on blood pressure.

That doesn't exonerate or add guilt to Lechmere. We're talking about the blood. It would happen whether she was killed by Lechmere or not.

Well, itīs more a question of HOW it happened - but she would indeed have bled no matter who did the cutting. But would a cutter who was there 15 minutes before Mizen be able to make her bleed for all that time? It is not a very viable suggestion. If Payne-James knows what he is talking about, we should acpet a bleeding time of a couple of initital minutes only. Once we pass the five minute line, we should be wary of how she becomes less and less likely to bleed with every second and minute that passes.

Going by Payne-James, the only persons caught inside the likely window of time are Paul and Lechmere. After that, there is a less likely - but not impossible - window of time. We need to enter that window to find the phantom killer everybody seems to be on about. And we have to discard Lechmere, with all the odd things that cling to him, before we can do so. As Andy Griffiths said:
"Certainly, in a modern age, you could not prosecute anybody else without eliminating him first".

[Elamarna]

He was there, directly involved, it doesn't matter when he states what he did, the evidence and facts do not change with the passage of time, nor does his recollection it seems. We have his "detailed" interview plus the newspaper reports, where is the evidence to negate all of this, are they all wrong? The only evidence is the misguided inferences which have been drawn by researchers over the years by the ambiguous statement of Dr Brown.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

It does matter if he was directly involved, it is a memory, recalled 8 years after the event, it is NOT A PRIMARY HISTORICAL SOURCE !


Why do you not understand this?

You do not believe me or Paul or anyone else, fine, please post a link to back up this view on historical sources.






Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, in the Chapman case, yes, there was Mann and the two nurses.
So, following your theory, it has to be one of them that stole the organs.

No.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

Columbo: It also relies on the health of the victim, their weight, whether on an angle pointing up or down, lying on their side, stomach, back or sitting up. You may possibly be able to formulate a medical opinion based on a healthy, normal weighted individual, but that also would not be concrete because of the individual who was losing the blood and under what circumstances would cause the loss of blood to begin with.

This is all true - and Jason Payne-James was fed all the information there is about Polly Nichols, and concluded that based on that information, his take on things was that she would have bled out on a matter of minutes only, and when I asked him how many minutes he was talking about, three, five, seven...? - he answered that all three suggestions could be true, but he regarded seven minutes as less likely than three or five.

What I don't know is being understood is not all of a person's blood flows out of the wound that was created. blood in the arms and lower extremities is not going to flood out of a neck wound unless the body was hung upside down. Blood from the neck is going to leak from the head and pump from the neck until the heart stops pumping. the heart stops pumping at death so if Nichols was throttled before her throat was cut, that would cause her heart to slow down before the cut and the heart would not beat that much longer, so not as much blood as originally thought would escape the wound.

All the blood in a dead body with no bloood pressure is subjected to gravity, and will run out of the body. What will not run out is the blood that rests on such a low point within the body as not to be able to exit it on account of how it would need to defy gravity to do so.
Putting it differently, punch a hole in an oil barrow halfway between bottom and top - and the barrel will leak out half of itīs contents. It is extremly easy!

So theoretically she could've been killed 15 minutes or so before Lechmere was seen with her, and the trickle or oozing could've continued that whole time after the initial gush of blood. Or it could be the result of Lechmere attacking her on 5 or so minutes before.

Jason Payne-James said that there can never be any total certainty, but given what we know about Nicholsīs body, the wounds and the position, his best guess was that the bleeding was more likely to go on for three to five minutes than for seven. It is my belief that if he was asked if it could have gone on for fifteen minutes, he would say that he would not want to rule anything decisively out, but he would regard the suggestion as a not likely one.
During a conversation with him, he said that this was something that often was used in legal matters - if a forensic expert said that something would go on for 1 minute up to one and a half, then the other side would ask "Could it go on for a minute and 40 seconds?", and the expert would have to say that yes, it COULD go on for that time but it would be less likely. And thereafter the other side would go "But if it COULD go on for a minute and 40 seconds, then surely it could also go on for a minute and 50 seconds? Or two minutes?", and the same would occur - the expert would have to say that yes, it COULD go on for that time, but it was even less likely.
Payne-James said that he often saw such matters escalate into completely absurd territory, but that is how the legal system works. And it is impossible to rate these things in percentages.

So if we want to stretch seven minutes to eight, we can. And to ten, we can do that too. And if we can stretch it to ten we can stretch it to eleven, tvelwe, thirteen, fourteen, and theeeere we go: fifteen!
Itīs NOT impossible, itīs just absurd.

What I've always looked at is not the blood but the mutilations. If the intent was to take an organ and the killing happened even 10 minutes before Paul saw Lechmere then the killer had plenty of time to take said organ without being caught and Lechmere would be innocent. On the flip side, if taking an organ was the intention then either Lechmere was the killer and disturbed by Paul or he disturbed the killer before he could complete his work.

My opinion only of course.

The absense of any organ-taking is a clear indication that the killer - if not Lechmere - fled very close in time to Lechmereīs arrival.
But we have a man who hides his real name, we have a man who seemingly lied to the police, we have a man who had reason to be at the murder sots at the times of the murders, so I am disinclined to favour a phantom killer.

Very true. As a suspect, Lechmere is a good candidate. I wouldn't presume to think I could change anyone's mind in the matter and I'm not trying to, but here is the major problems with Lechmere being a suspect as opposed to others that have been suggested:

1. We (or at least I) know very little about Cross outside of this forum. There are bits and pieces, and what we know so far is that Cross seemed to be a relatively normal man with a large libido and family. I have not read anything about him having a criminal record, beating his wife and kids, or any violent tendencies. He held a steady job and marriage for several years and opened up a business. He died of an old age and was never accused(as far as we know) of any violent crime. I understand there's a book being written about him. Maybe we'll find out more.

2. We know he went to the police with the man who saw him with the body and even came forward to the police before the Inquest. We also know he examined the body with another person whom he didn't know. He didn't run, he didn't separate from the man who found him. Some have said this was a cunning, devious move or it could be an innocent man trying to help a sick woman lying in the road.

3. He used a different name at the inquest. Reasons are not clear why, but we'll never really know. I won't even guess as to why he would do that.

4. He's been suggested as a suspect for the torso murders. I don't think he did it, but that's my opinion only.


Other suspects, such as James Kelly, Faughenbaum, Druitt, Kosminski, Coen and Bury have a history of mental illness, and/or violence towards women and some have committed murders. None have been seen with a body. These tendencies make them more interesting as a viable suspect. It doesn't mean they did it, just that it's possible.


So I think Fisherman, you can see why the disagreements are there, and why Lechmere, who at this point is guilty of only one thing, lying to the inquest about his name, has been disregarded as a viable suspect. He may have possibly lied to Mizen about another PC being there but that's not concrete. that's a "he said he said" argument and not provable as to who's right.

I personally would like to see something about Cross that has not been discussed on this forum. I would like to know when this proposed book is coming out.

I'm still working on Trevor's springing intestine theory.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: No I do not feel wrong, I am not proposing a theory that the killer killed on his way to work, it is not on me to disprove the idea,it is on you to prove it.

That does not matter when it comes to how four victims killed along the proposed paths of a suspect IS a very suspicious thing. James Scobie clearly recognized this too: "There is an area of offending to which he is linked". I donīt think he is unfit to make this sort of call.

At present it is theory lacking in substance in my view, you see it differently. No problem. I am sure it won't give either of us hours of anguish.

Not even minutes, Steve.

Given that we do not know the exact number of victim, such figures as 2 or 3 or even 5 are of little use statistically.

See the above.

Ones written responses often, not always show a degree of frustration that others do not see things the same way as yourself and this can come across, I say can, as not giving any ground.

What ground is it that I have not given that you think I should give? If we are speaking specifically of my take on the Lechmere bid?

However if one makes a reasoned suggestion, you often do listen and even agree, such as the posts between us about blood flow, although to be honest we were never that far apart from what I can tell.

I do prefer the reasoned suggestions to the unreasoned ones. There are far too many of those...

[Fisherman]

Very true. As a suspect, Lechmere is a good candidate. I wouldn't presume to think I could change anyone's mind in the matter and I'm not trying to, but here is the major problems with Lechmere being a suspect as opposed to others that have been suggested:

1. We (or at least I) know very little about Cross outside of this forum. There are bits and pieces, and what we know so far is that Cross seemed to be a relatively normal man with a large libido and family. I have not read anything about him having a criminal record, beating his wife and kids, or any violent tendencies. He held a steady job and marriage for several years and opened up a business. He died of an old age and was never accused(as far as we know) of any violent crime. I understand there's a book being written about him. Maybe we'll find out more.

2. We know he went to the police with the man who saw him with the body and even came forward to the police before the Inquest. We also know he examined the body with another person whom he didn't know. He didn't run, he didn't separate from the man who found him. Some have said this was a cunning, devious move or it could be an innocent man trying to help a sick woman lying in the road.

3. He used a different name at the inquest. Reasons are not clear why, but we'll never really know. I won't even guess as to why he would do that.

4. He's been suggested as a suspect for the torso murders. I don't think he did it, but that's my opinion only.


Other suspects, such as James Kelly, Faughenbaum, Druitt, Kosminski, Coen and Bury have a history of mental illness, and/or violence towards women and some have committed murders. None have been seen with a body. These tendencies make them more interesting as a viable suspect. It doesn't mean they did it, just that it's possible.


So I think Fisherman, you can see why the disagreements are there, and why Lechmere, who at this point is guilty of only one thing, lying to the inquest about his name, has been disregarded as a viable suspect. He may have possibly lied to Mizen about another PC being there but that's not concrete. that's a "he said he said" argument and not provable as to who's right.

I personally would like to see something about Cross that has not been discussed on this forum. I would like to know when this proposed book is coming out.

I'm still working on Trevor's springing intestine theory.

Columbo

People with a record of violence are never better suspects in a crime than those who have a proven opportunity, thatīs all I will say in an answer to this post of yours, Columbo. The only exception to that rule is when there is something extremely odd is involved in a murder, like for example gouging out of the eyes, like Charles Albright did.
When there is no precedence and noone who fits what happened at a murder site, the ones who can be knit physically to that site are better suspects than violent people who are not on record as having been in place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Historical Facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trevor

It does matter if he was directly involved, it is a memory, recalled 8 years after the event, it is NOT A PRIMARY HISTORICAL SOURCE !


Why do you not understand this?

You do not believe me or Paul or anyone else, fine, please post a link to back up this view on historical sources.

Why does it have to be a historical source? it is fact, he can say that in 1888 no organs were missing because he had first hand knowledge, that is a primary source if he says the same thing in 1896 what changes nothing. It is the same person still saying what he said in 1888, and entitled to say what he says and irrefutable until there is evidence to prove him wrong.

All this crap about his memory lapse is pathetic, and a sign of desperation amongst those who seek to prop up the old theory. The papers say nothing was missing. Reid says nothing was missing, were they all wrong, no, accept it and move on.

If you are going to play the memory lapse card you might as well tear up all that there is on record regarding the writings and memoirs of officers who were involved, or does it suit to play the card with regards to Reids interview only? Prove Kellys heart was not taken by the killer and thats a big chunk gone from this mystery which then has a knock on effect with other parts of this mystery. ie,the purported organ removals from Eddowes and Chapman.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Steve

[Jon Guy]

if Reid can say that in 1888 no organs were missing because he had first hand knowledge, that is a primary source

If you can show that Reid said in 1888 that the heart was not missing, Trevor, that would be a primary source.
Do you have this info ?

[Elamarna]

Historical Facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trevor

You have just demonstrated to every single person on this forum that you completely fail to understand the difference between Primary and Secondary sources.

Of course they are historical sources, any document from the past is historic, but I doubt you understand that.

No they are not Facts; they are sources, and being Primary does not mean they are true. It only means they are recorded at or very close to the time, without drawing on other sources.

However in some circumstances, sources which draw on other sources may be all we have.

That source then becomes THE Primary source for the incident, but is not a Primary source itself strictly speaking


It is clear, however you really do not understand any of this at all.

Here we have a source from 1896 which says nothing was missing, fine, that is a secondary source; you are now suggesting that in 1888 Reid said the same thing, therefore please quote that source, for it would indeed be a primary source, if you can.


Steve

[Elamarna]

If you can show that Reid said in 1888 that the heart was not missing, Trevor, that would be a primary source.
Do you have this info ?

Quite so Jon.

One wonders why Trevor did not quote such a source in the first place?


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

If you can show that Reid said in 1888 that the heart was not missing, Trevor, that would be a primary source.
Do you have this info ?

No I dont, but I used that as an example. If I had that info this issue would have been settled in 1888 would it not? Can you prove anything to the contrary from him, or from anyone else who was directly involved? There isnt anything only Dr Browns ambiguous statement and no corroboration to that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

People with a record of violence are never better suspects in a crime than those who have a proven opportunity, thatīs all I will say in an answer to this post of yours, Columbo. The only exception to that rule is when there is something extremely odd is involved in a murder, like for example gouging out of the eyes, like Charles Albright did.
When there is no precedence and noone who fits what happened at a murder site, the ones who can be knit physically to that site are better suspects than violent people who are not on record as having been in place.

I'm not saying anyone of the "suspects" I listed did it, I'm only pointing out the reason why others consider them better suspects then Cross. Since we unfortunately do not have the official police records containing the interview with Cross before the inquest, or even the inquest itself we can't be for sure that he was even suspected of anything.

I do have to disagree with you somewhat on your last statement. If the person who finds the body is cleared of any wrongdoing the police will then look at people who have a history of violence towards women, who have assaulted or even murdered before and who might have violent tendencies because of a mental problem. That's me being a little nitpicky though.

I think we need more info on Cross himself and go on from there. We've covered no new ground with this thread on the Nichols murder and Cross, except we know that Trevor thinks all of our entrails are packed in our bodies like a spring in a phony can of peanuts.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

You have just demonstrated to every single person on this forum that you completely fail to understand the difference between Primary and Secondary sources.

Of course they are historical sources, any document from the past is historic, but I doubt you understand that.

No they are not Facts; they are sources, and being Primary does not mean they are true. It only means they are recorded at or very close to the time, without drawing on other sources.

However in some circumstances, sources which draw on other sources may be all we have.

That source then becomes THE Primary source for the incident, but is not a Primary source itself strictly speaking


It is clear, however you really do not understand any of this at all.

Here we have a source from 1896 which says nothing was missing, fine, that is a secondary source; you are now suggesting that in 1888 Reid said the same thing, therefore please quote that source, for it would indeed be a primary source, if you can.


Steve

I am not suggesting he said the same thing. I used it as an example to prove the point, but if it were the case no organs were missing he must have said it at some point but that does not appear to be recorded, as there is no record of anyone saying the heart was missing from the room. So who do we believe ?

If I am conducting a cold case review and I trace a witness who gives new material evidence and goes to court with that evidence it is regarded as primary, age has no bearing on that evidence. Of course the defence might want to question that persons memory but that doesnt change what the evidence is.

If that person goes to court and gives hearsay evidence that is secondary.

Historical facts do not come into it. This is part of the trouble with Ripperology for years researchers have been readily believing and accepting almost everything that has been written and said over the years. History is there to be challenged.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Historical Facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...........

All this crap about his memory lapse is pathetic, and a sign of desperation amongst those who seek to prop up the old theory. The papers say nothing was missing. Reid says nothing was missing, were they all wrong, no, accept it and move on.

I have not mentioned memory lapse!

It is purely that you claim it as a primary source, it is not.

If you are going to play the memory lapse card you might as well tear up all that there is on record regarding the writings and memoirs of officers who were involved, or does it suit to play the card with regards to Reids interview only?

I am not playing the memory lapse card at all.

However that works both ways, so are you suggesting that the Anderson's "The lighter side of my official life" is a primary source?

Actually isn't memory lapse the main argument used against Anderson, can I ask if you have ever argued that against him yourself?



steve

[Columbo]

This belief of placement of organs outside the body comes from the doctors as simply an opinion "as if by design" Let me play devils advocate here. We know the killer stabbed and mutilated the abdomen of Eddowes. But that act would have damaged any organs that he may have been seeking, and in any event would have made it difficult for him to remove them successfully.

With regards to the removal how would he have been able to effect the removals. First of all a blood filled abdomen, where would the light have come from for him to be able to see into the abdomen. How would he have been able to locate and take hold of the organs to be able to remove them with medical precision, so many negatives about this belief that the killer took them.

You dont have to remove the intestines to gain access and remove a uterus, someone with medical knowledge would have known that. In the case of Chapman the fallopian tubes were still attached to the uterus when removed an even more intricate procedure to carry out in the dark.

As to you question regarding the intestines etc, another explanation could be that after ripping open the abdomen and the intestines recoiling out perhaps he was fascinated by seeing them and took hold of them putting then down in such a postion that the doctors thought they had been placed there.

The kidney is the most difficult organ in the body to locate again what i have said above also applies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

were these murders carried out in complete darkness? The only one I see that was completely dark would've been Eddowes.

Chapman was killed while people were getting up, lighting lanterns, boiling water. That back yard was not pitch black. Especially right before dawn.

Nichols has been discussed. MJK had plenty of light to be killed by as well as Stride.

Tabram might be similar to Eddowes but I'm not sure.

These murders may not have been committed in broad daylight, but I'm sure there was enough ambient light provided to get the job done.


Columbo